to think there's no need for DH to "watch out" for me having an affair?

[PrettyRicky]

Lots of context so no drip-feeding!

DH's brother was in our city for work yesterday. DH met him in town for a drink at about 6pm and I joined them an hour later and we all went for a meal.

DH and his brother have a bit of a strained relationship. They very rarely see each other (once every few years at family things) and only speak on the phone a couple of times a year. I've only met BIL about three times.

Random context but this is important: I don't wear a wedding ring, I didn't change my name when we got hitched, I refer to my DH as my "partner" when I'm talking to people.

Anyway, while in the restaurant last night a male ex-colleague walked in. This colleague now lives in Japan and I haven't seen him for about five years. We used to get on really well when we worked together. We spotted each other and he came over. We hugged and kissed (on the cheek) and I introduced DH and BIL briefly. We had a quick chat then he went and sat with the people he was with. As we were leaving, I went over to my ex-colleague, we kissed again and generally said how lovely it was to see each other, we should Skype soon.. yadda yadda

This morning, BIL has text DH saying he thinks DH should "beware" of me having an affair. He said that he noticed I don't wear a wedding ring, last night I introduced DH to my ex-colleague as "my partner" rather than "my husband" and I was too touchy-feely with ex-colleague. Apparently DH should "watch out" for me having an affair.

AIBU to think this it's completely out of order for BIL to text this to DH considering he knows nothing about me or our relationship? What's his game here do you think?

DH hasn't replied yet- he can't think of what to say. How do you reply to something like that?!

It's perfectly possible to replicate the "piece of paper" outside marriage.

Without getting into the marriage thing - this is a very different question. Is this true - & a genuine question. So you can make a will , put your house in joint names (tenants in common I think it is) you can ( if lucky enough to have one ) give any death in service benefits to a nominee , but ( & I genuinely want to know) e.g. an unmarried partner is not the Next of Kin if a partner is severely unwell in hospital they have no legal rights there ( am I right) - nor will they qualify for any inheritance tax benefit which a spouse / civil partner would have. If anyone who knows I would like to know the answer because I am not sure that marriage / civil partnership ( Ie you have legally bound yourself to each other as a couple in one quick way - bad phrase but I hope people see what I mean) can be replicated entirely by other contracts / documents. More than happy to be proved wrong.

which is a women financially-dependent on a man, confined to the domestic sphere with very limited life opportunities

Wow.

I think that were you posting as the DP of a man who was being touchy-feely with someone else, refusing to wear a ring etc, they would be 'red flags'.

Why are you so determined to appear unmarried?

He's an idiot, plain and simple.

Reminds me of a time I was going to go out somewhere special on a river at night with a friend, her husband and some friends of hers. At the last moment my friend couldn't go and it was bloody freezing on the river and me without a sweater. Her husband kindly offered to share his blanket with me. Next day her so-called friends were telling her that I was a danger to her marriage. Guess what! Those friends are off the map, and me and my good friend are still as thick as thieves. She knows her husband and she knows me.

"wife" in my head is conflated with "housewife" which is a women financially-dependent on a man, confined to the domestic sphere with very limited life opportunities.

However, marriage does have wider connotations of "ownership" and subordination of women.

What I meant was women who are stuck at home at all day, do everything for their husbands, have no independent money, no job and so few opportunities to travel, meet new people, do something new, do something just selfishly for themselves. I guess the stereotypical 1960s housewife waiting for DH to get home getting through the day on anti-depressants.

I am still incredulous at OP's view of wifedom. I want to reclaim the word.
The following is a list of successful women who are well-known within their sphere of work and expertise. They are all married. They are many-faceted human beings who have achieved much. Being married is only one of those facets and doesn't seem to have held them back in some form of 1960s drudgery.

The Queen; politicians Theresa May, Nicola Sturgeon, Arlene Foster, Leanne Wood, Caroline Lucas, Harriet Harman, Angela Merkel; the highest paid women at the BBC Claudia Winkleman, Alex Jones, Fiona Bruce; sportswomen Jessica Ennis-Hill, Tanni Grey-Thompson; the First Cashier at the Bank of England Victoria Cleland; CEOs of FTSE100 companies GlaxoSmithKlein (Emma Walmsley), Severn Trent Water (Liv Garfield) and ITV (Carolyn McCall); the first woman law lord, Baroness Hale ; academics Mary Warnock and Lisa Jardine; writers J K Rowling, Zadie Smith, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

Is that list long enough yet? Have I made my point? Being a wife is not a negative thing (nor a defining thing) in the 21st century. I reclaim the word.

I don't think your intention was to make you look crazy and weirdly over invested in supposed slights from the OP. But yeah, that's what you've just done.

The whole institution of marriage and all the words around it are rooted in property law and the idea of a woman as a possession to be passed from father to husband. Obviously, things have changed a lot . But we still live in a patriarchal society, and I personally choose to try to perpetuate a patriarchal mind set as little as possible. So no wedding bells for me. Downside? Having to buy your own champagne flutes........

@BertrandRussell

I consider time on MN a little empty if I don't get to read "But we still live in a patriarchal society," from you or a few 'special' others.

Back off,

"I consider time on MN a little empty if I don't get to read "But we still live in a patriarchal society," from you or a few 'special' others"

Are you saying we don't?

Oh, and- word to the wise- "special" in quotes like that is perhaps a nastier thing to say than you intended? 0r perhaps not.......

I use partner rather than husband - it reflects our relationship more & I dislike the (old fashioned) associations around husband/wife.

I use my name not his. All 4 of my children (2 together & 2 with ex) use my surname.

I might react similar in those circumstances and BIL would get short shift from me or DP for commenting so belittlingly on our relationship when he barely ever sees us.

Oh Bert, you are certainly on form this morning, my little hairy contradiction!

If it works for you it works for you. Bil sounds like your way of being married would threaten him. That's his issue. Shrug it off, or laugh it off , or if they have that kind of relationship talk it over.

Just one thing - you're very dismissive of people who don't 'do being married' like you are. For some people, being 'just a housewife' works for them. If it works for them, they're happy and there's no coercion then you should extend the same courtesy of acceptance and respect that you're asking from others.

I'm married. I wear a ring. I didn't take his name for a while, it's not that common where I live but in the end I did ( as a foreigner it helps with integration.) I work, dh and I are equal partners and parent equally. Also we are in Sweden and there's far less gender discrimination crap here, the marriage ceremony is you walk in together to signify equality in marriage then it's 'do you? Yes? Do you? Yes. Done. Party time.

That's what works for us. Your way works for you. A more traditional one partner at home way works for others. Same sex marriage works for others. All are valid choices.

I'm with you on the idea that bil is a twit who feels threatened, but don't scorn how others do it. Their way is just as valid as yours.

"Oh Bert, you are certainly on form this morning, my little hairy contradiction! brew"

Explain that, please?

Basilisk I think next of kin is a nominee thing not a legal thing. Spouses are normally assumed to be next of kin if no one else is nominated or the record can't be found.

IHT? how many people live in £600k+ homes. Wait... I forgot this is mumsnet so all the pp are billionaires.

Yep I was wrong as I so frequently am on here. Oh and I forgot the new £1000 a year personal allowance transfer thing too so if I can chain dw to the kitchen for the next 90 years I might be able to recoup my wedding costs

NewDaddie - sorry if if my post sounded insensitive - I was just genuinely interested in what you can and can't put in place to give you what marriage or a civil partnership does. - I'll google it My apologies.

IHT? how many people live in £600k+ homes. Wait... I forgot this is mumsnet so all the pp are billionaires.

Where did you get £600k £650k from? The IHT threshold is £325k. Or were you getting confused about the special provisions only available to spouses and civil partners ...

Where did you get £600k £650k from? The IHT threshold is £325k. Or were you getting confused about the special provisions only available to spouses and civil partners ..

If the IHT threshold is £325K then the house would half to be worth over double that assuming the "partner" owned half the house anyway.

My impression is more to do with iht, pensions, etc. I'm not an expert in this field but I would suspect you could arrange trusts which take monies out of the estate. Tbh though I have been married twice. I did say I'd never do it again but I have a great relationship with my partner and we are not getting any younger so I do feel I need advice on this front.

Text at 11:30pm last night when we were in bed saying "Sorry mate, didn't mean to offend I was just a bit concerned. Nice to see you and here to talk if you need to"

What a cunt. Fine, he apologised and sort of explained, said something nice then he just casually threw in a snip that he's actually not sorry and is still concerned as there might be reason for DH to need to talk.

DH isn't replying to it this time.

He just sounds like an idiot. Ignore completely, and don't give him a second thought.

'Concerned at what exactly?' I'd reply,

Twit. He sounds like he's not going to drop it

What a passive aggressive twunty text.

At least your DH sees it for what it is.